A Comparison of 3D Conformal and Deep Inspiratory Breath Holding vs. 4D-CT Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients with Left Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multimodality is required for the treatment of breast cancer. Surgery, radiation (RT), and systemic therapy were traditionally used. Pharmacotherapy includes different drug mechanisms, such as chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapies, alone or in combination with radiotherapy. While radiation offers numerous benefits, it also has certain harmful risks. such as cardiac and pulmonary toxicity, lymphedema, and secondary cancer. Modern radiation techniques have been developed to reduce organs at risk (OAR) doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective feasibility trial conducted at the Fayium Oncology Center on patients with left breast cancer receiving adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy after either breast conservative surgery (BCS) or modified radical mastectomy (MRM). This study aimed to assess the proportion of patients who are fit both physically and intellectually to undergo breast radiotherapy using the deep inspiratory breath-holding (DIBH) technique, comparing different dosimetric outcomes between the 3D dimensional conformal with DIBH and 4D-CT IMRT plans of the same patient. RESULTS: D95 of the clinical target volume (CTV) of the target is significantly higher in the 3D DIBH plan than in the IMRT plan, with an average of 90.812% vs. 86.944%. The dosimetry of the mean heart dose (MHD) in the 4D-CT IMRT plan was significantly lower than in the 3D conformal with the DIBH plan (2.6224 vs. 4.056 Gy, p < 0.0064), and no significant difference between the two plans regarding mean left anterior descending artery (LAD) (14.696 vs. 13.492 Gy, p < 0.58), maximum LAD (39.9 vs. 43.5 Gy, p < 0.35), and V20 of the ipsilateral lung (18.66% vs. 16.306%, p < 0.88) was observed. Internal mammary chain (IMC) irradiation was better in the 4D-CT IMRT plan. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy of the breast and chest wall with the 4D-CT IMRT technique appears not to be inferior to the 3D conformal with the DIBH technique and can be used as an alternative to the 3D conformal with the DIBH technique in patients meeting the exclusion criteria for performing the DIBH maneuver concerning coverage to target volumes or unacceptably high doses to OAR.

Effect of pressures and type of ventilation on aerosol delivery to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.

Background: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) show some evidence to have efficacy in COVID-19 patients. Delivery during noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) or HFNC gives faster and more enhanced clinical effects than when aerosols are given without assisted breath. The present work aimed to compare the effect of BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) mode at two different pressures; low BiPAP (Inspiratory Positive Airway Pressure (IPAP)/Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP) of 10/5 cm water) and high BiPAP (IPAP/EPAP of 20/5 cm water), with HFNC system on pulmonary and systemic drug delivery of salbutamol. On the first day of the experiment, all patients received 2500 µg salbutamol using Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer. Urine samples 30 min post-dose and cumulative urinary salbutamol during the next 24 h were collected on the next day. On the third day, the ex-vivo filter was inserted before the patient to collect the delivered dose to the patient of the 2500 µg salbutamol. Salbutamol was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Results: Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest amount delivered to the lung after 30 min followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. But the significant difference was only observed between low and high-pressure BiPAP modes (p = 0.012). Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest delivered systemic delivery amount followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.017) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). No significant difference was reported between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP. The ex-vivo filter was the greatest in the case of low-pressure BiPAP followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.033) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). Also, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP. Conclusions: Our results of pulmonary, systemic, and ex-vivo drug delivery were found to be consistent. The low BiPAP delivered the highest amount followed by the HFNC then the high BiPAP with the least amount. However, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high BiPAP.

Aerosol delivery aspects within a high-flow therapy system in COPD patients.

There is a lack of information about the influence of patient interfaces such as facemasks or mouthpieces on the effective dose of aerosolised drugs while using high-flow therapy in a clinical setting. These interfaces can improve pulmonary drug delivery over nasal cannulas but patient preference and comfort should also be considered. The present work was to determine the effect of three different interfaces (nasal cannula, valved face mask, and mouthpiece) when combined with titrated oxygen flow on aerosol delivery in patients with COPD hospitalised due to acute exacerbation. The variations between these interfaces were addressed in terms of change in lung function measurements pre-and post-inhalation, the delivered salbutamol dose, and patient tolerance to each interface. A high-flow nasal cannula was the most comfortable interface used. However, its pulmonary drug delivery was significantly lower than both the valved face mask and mouthpiece (p<0.05). Although drug delivery was different with the three tested interfaces, the lung function improvements were similar.

First-time handling of different inhalers by chronic obstructive lung disease patients.

Background: There is a lack of guidance on inhaler device selection and how to individualize inhaler choice when prescribed for the first-time.Aim of the work: To compare different inhalers regarding ease of use and number of counseling attempts needed for correct handling in subjects with a first experience to such inhalers; also, to investigate if there is a correlation between total correct steps achievements and patient demographics/clinical variables.Method: An open-label, non-drug interventional, cross-over study was conducted including 180 Egyptian patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The study evaluated handling of the most common inhalers in subjects with a first experience with them before hospital discharge. Subjects were randomized to handle 10 placebo inhalers including: [metered dose inhaler (pMDI), Aerolizer, Handihaler, Turbohaler, Diskus, Breezhaler, Ellipta, Easyhaler, Diskhaler, and Respimat] without receiving verbal or demonstrative instruction with allowable access to the patient information leaflets in native language supported by figures with enough time to read (baseline assessment). Subjects were then crossed-over to other inhalers with a first experience randomly. Inhalers with a reported past-experience were excluded. Inhaler-technique was assessed by using previously defined checklists, including essential steps and critical errors. The whole handling of the inhaler was demonstrated and the number of counseling attempts needed to correct handling was recorded. Patient demographics and clinical variables were recorded and correlated with correct handling steps.Results: The baseline percentages of total correct steps achievements as mean ± SD were 50 ± 19, 52 ± 16, 58 ± 14, 60 ± 17, 64 ± 10, 67 ± 16, 72 ± 17, 73 ± 11, 77 ± 14 and 86 ± 11% for Respimat, pMDI, Diskhaler, Diskus, Aerolizer, Handihaler, Easyhaler, Turbohaler, Breezhaler, and Ellipta respectively with p < 0.001. Baseline percentages of participants with at least 1 critical error significantly differed between inhalers (p < 0.05) with Ellipta showing the lowest percentage (37%). pMDI, Diskhaler, and Respimat showed the highest percentages (100%, 97% and 94% respectively). The number of counseling attempts needed to reach correct handling showed a significant difference among inhalers (p < 0.05). Ellipta showed the highest percentage of participants with correct handling with no counseling (20%) and the highest percentage of participants achieved with one counseling attempt (78%). Diskhaler, pMDI, and Respimat were the only inhalers included in a fourth counseling attempt (15%, 9%, and 6% respectively). Weak and very weak correlations were found between patient demographics/clinical variables and percentages of total correct steps achievements.Conclusion: Inhalers techniques greatly vary in their ease of use (self-explaining) ranging from easy inhalers (Ellipta) to intermediate inhalers (breezhaler, Easyhaler, Turbohaler, Aerolizer, Handihaler, and Diskus) followed by the most difficult inhalers (pMDI, Diskhaler, and Respimat). That must be considered when prescribing inhalers for the first time; choice of the inhaler should, in part, be based on ease of use and to be accompanied by repeated counseling.

Prevalence and predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate in COPD patients.

The aim of this study was to determine prevalence and possible clinical predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) with different dry powder inhalers. PIFR was measured across all resistance ranges of In-Check Dial® in 180 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects before hospital discharge. COPD subjects were defined as suboptimal if measured PIFR was suboptimal with any resistance representative of specific inhalers (R1-R5). Demographics and clinical data were collected, including COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scores, Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage spirometry by Spirodoc® and peak flow meter measurements with portable peak inspiratory and expiratory flow meters. All were correlated with In-Check Dial PIFRs. Suboptimal PIFR was 44.44% prevalent in COPD subjects. 55% of the suboptimal cohort was female which represent 57.14% of the total female population in the study. The distribution of suboptimal PIFR included 43.75% with R1, 67.5% with R2, 100% with R3, 13.75% with R4, and 21.25% with R5. In the suboptimal cohort, CAT score was significantly higher and spirometry demonstrated significantly lower lung function results compared to the optimal cohort (p < 0.05). The only parameter to show strong and moderate correlation with In-Check Dial PIFRs was PIFR measured by peak flow meter (p < 0.001). Suboptimal PIFR is common among COPD subjects at hospital discharge. Female gender and peak flow meter PIFR was the only predictor of suboptimal PIFR. Inhaler therapy for COPD patients must be personalized based on simple routine measurement of In-Check Dial PIFRs or peak flow meter PIFR to optimize clinical benefits .